* 🌱 Add branch protection evaluation
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* make helper for getting the branchName
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* move check for branch name
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* define size of slice
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* add probe for protected branches.
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* change 'basicNonAdminProtection' to 'deleteAndForcePushProtection'
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* fix markdown in text field in def.yml
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove duplicate conditional
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove redundant 'protected' value from 'requiresCodeOwnersReview' probe
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove protected values from probes
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* Bring back negative outcome in case of 0 codeowners files
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* log based on whether branches are protected
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove unnecessary test
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* debug failing tests
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* Fix failing tests
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* rename test
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
* update to with latest upstream changes
Signed-off-by: AdamKorcz <adam@adalogics.com>
* fix linting issues
Signed-off-by: AdamKorcz <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove tests that represent impossible scenarios
Signed-off-by: AdamKorcz <adam@adalogics.com>
* remove protected finding value
This was discussed previously, but accidentally reverted
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* Revert "debug failing tests"
This reverts commit 00acf66ea6.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* use branchName key for branch name
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* include number of reviews in INFO
this was previously included by the old evaluation code
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* reduce info count by 1
requiring codeowners without a corresponding file used to give 1 INFO and 1 WARN
now it only gives 1 WARN
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Adam Korczynski <adam@adalogics.com>
Signed-off-by: AdamKorcz <adam@adalogics.com>
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* test failures should print the details they receive
this makes debugging failing tests easier.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* use GinkgoTB so the test helpers work instead of panicing
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* ValidateTestReturn will fail the test directly, no need for the bool return
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* clarify diff details
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): consider if project requires PRs prior to make changes
As discussed at the issue #2727, we're adding the "require PRs prior
to make changes" as another requirement to tier 2. In addition to that,
we're changing the weight of the tier 2 requirements so that
"requiring 1 reviewer" has weight 2, while the other tier 2 requirements
have weight 1
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): increment and adapt testing
1. Adapt previous test cases to consider that now we'll have an aditional
Info log telling that the project requires PRs to make changes.
2. Add more cases to test relevant use cases on the tier 2 level of
branch protection
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* docs(branch-protection-check): adapt check description to consider requirement of require PRs to make changes
It adds the new tier 2 requirement, but also specify that the
"require at least 1 reviewer" will have doubled weight.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection-check): avoid duplicate funcions and enhance readability
Made some nice-to-have improvements on project readability,
making it easier easier to understand how the branch-protection
score is computed. Also unified 8 different functions that were
doing basically the same thing.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): standardize values received on evaluation
Previously, at the evaluation part of branch protetion, the
values nil and false or zero were sort of interchangeble. This commit
changes the code to set as nil only the data that could not be retrieved
from github -- all the others would have values as false, zero, true, etc
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(github-client): adapt and add tests to check if nil values are coherent
1. Add new test to evaluate how we're interpreting a rule with all
checkboxes unchecked (most shouldn't be nil)
2. Adapt existent tests to expect non-nil values for unchecked
checkboxes
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(client-github): avoid reusing bool pointers
Changes some pieces of code to prefer using pointers of
bool instantiated independently. If reusing bool pointers, at some piece
of code the value of the bool could inadvertently changed and it would change the
value of all other fields reusing that pointer.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): enhance evaluation if scorecard was run by admin
At the evaluation step we were using some non untrusted fieldds of the
resposte to evaluate if Scorecard was run as admin or not. Now we're
using a field provided directly from the client file.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): adapt testings to say if they have admin info or not
After last commit, the client will tell the evaluation files if
Scorecard was run by administrator or not (i.e., if we have all the
infos). This commit adapts the testings to also provide this info.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(e2e-branch-protection): adapt number of logs after changes
- 2 warns (for 'last push approval' and 'codeowners review' disabled) were added because now those informations come as 'not-nil' at the evaluation part.
- 1 info was added to say that PRs are required to make changes
- 1 debug was removed because it said that we couldn't retrieve 'last push approval' information, but we actually can. It was just incorrectly set as nil
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* Revert the 2 commits with changes around how Scorecard detects admin run
Reverts commit 64c3521d89a6493e0d8c7527aa011f98c3e35719 and commit e2662b7173ef90b44b2d72c37614230440e8a919.
Both had chances around using clients/branch.go scructur to store the
information of whether Scorecard was being run by admin or not. We
decided to not change this structure for this purpose.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): change data structure to use pointer instead of value
At clients.BranchProtectionRule struct, changing
RequiredPullRequestReviews to be a pointer instead of a struct value.
This will allow the usage of the nil value of this structure to mean
that we can't say if the repository requires reviews or not.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): use nil pointer on reviewers struct to mean
we don't know if they require PRs
The nil value of the struct RequiredPullRequestReviews will now mean
that we can't tell whether the project requires PRs to make changes or not.
When we get this case, we're printing a debug informing that we don't have
this data, but also printing a warn saying that they don't require
reviews, because that will be true at this case.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): if we're setting the reviewers struct to nil
when needed
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* doc(branch-protection): add code comment explaining different weight on tier 2 scores
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): avoid duplicate if branches on reviewers num comparation
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* docs(branch-protection): clarify commentings around data structure
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor: clean code on parsing GitHub BP data
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): ressignify the nil PullRequestReviewRule to mean PR not required
Adapt translation of data from GitHub API, now for our internal data
modeling, having a nil PullRequestReviewRule structure will mean that
PRs are not required on the repo (can also mean we don't have data to
ensure that).
It also changes the order of the calls of copyNonAdminSettings and
copyAdminSettings to make the first one be called first. This eases the
code because the PullRequestReviewRule can be always instantiated at
this function.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): ensure we translate GitHub BP data as expected
Ensure we're correctly translating GitHub data from the old Branch
Protection config.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* feat(branch-protection): adapt score evaluation after 2efeee6512
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): adapt testings to changes of last commits
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* docs(branch-protection): add TODO comments pointing refactor opportunities
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* fix: avoid penalyzing non-admin for dismissStaleReview
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* fix(branch-protection): prevent false value from API field to become nil
When translating the API results, if the specific field `DismissesStaleReviews`
had a false value, it was not being initiated in our data model and was
remaining nil.
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor: clarify different weight on first reviewer
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor: enhance clarity of loggings and comments
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): new test to cover different rules affecting same branch
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* docs(branch-protection): change requirements ordering to keep admin ones together
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): simplify auxiliary function
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): fix code format to linter requirements
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): avoid unnecessary initializations and rename function
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): adapt test that was forgotten on commit 6858790a3e
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): use enums to represent tiers
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): remove nil fields of struct initialization when they dont contribute for clarification
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): simplify functions by using generics
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* docs(branch-protection): update docs after generate-docs run
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* fix(branch-protection): fix duplicated line on code
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* fix(branch-protection): stop exporting Tier enum
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* refactor(branch-protection): changing unchanged var to const
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* test(branch-protection): Rename test and adapt it to be consistent with its purpose
I also changed the test to not require PRs, as it's how it is when a new GitHub
Branch Protection config is created. The changes on the loggings numbers are due
to:
1. A warning for not having DismissStaleReviews became a debug
2. Removed the warning we had for not requiring CodeOwners
3. Have a new warning for not requiring PRe
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Diogo Teles Sant'Anna <diogoteles@google.com>
* repo rulesets via v4 api
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* good enough fnmatch implementation.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* good enough rulesMatchingBranch
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* apply matching repo rules to branch protection settings
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* rules: consider admins and require checks
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* non-structural chanages from PR feedback
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* fetch default branch name during repo rules query
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* Testing applyRepoRules
Tests assume a single rule is being applied to a branch, which might be
guarded by a legacy branch protection rule.
I think this logic gets problematic when there are multiple rules
overlaid on the same branch: the "the existing rules does not enforce
for admins, but i do and therefore this branch now does" will give
false-positives.
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* Test_applyRepoRules: builder and standardize names
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* attempt to upgrade/downgrade EnforceAdmins as each rule is applied
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
* simplify enforce admin for now.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* handle merging pull request reviews
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* handle merging check rules
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* handle last push approval
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* handle linear history
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* use constants for github rule types.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* add status check test.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* add e2e test for repo rules.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* handle nil branch name data
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* add tracking issue.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* fix precedence in if statement
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
* include repo rules in the check docs.
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
---------
Signed-off-by: Peter Wagner <1559510+thepwagner@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Spencer Schrock <sschrock@google.com>
